Pages

Monday, November 28, 2011

Disregard the corporate-influenced Conservative and Media spin-off of these protestors "Not knowing what they're protesting about", "being dirty, smelly hippies", or "lazy whiners". They would have you believe that Occupy Wall Street (and their counterparts from cities around the world) protestors are enduring police beatings, pepper spray to the face, tasings, arrests, nights in jail, acquiring criminal records, cold nights in crammed encampments, giving up the comforts of their homes for days/weeks, and other sacrifices just to hear themselves "whine" and because they are too lazy to work. Really? I've never heard of someone being so dedicated to laziness.

Was this really necessary? Is this freedom of speech? Has the U.S. become a "Police State"?

We can't compete with Corporate America on their terms in the current political system. Our lawyers aren't as good, our pockets not deep enough to have our politicians actually work for us. All we have is our numbers and our votes, and our votes only get us so far since 99% of politicians only seem to answer to their biggest donors. So, all we have is our numbers. We dissolve that, at this crucial moment, and we will only enbolden those who use their influence to quite literally squeeze us like sponges.

Here's a prime example of the type of corporate corruption allowed to take place in our country by which the OWS movement are so enraged. A number of Corporations have coalesced with Congress to dishonestly horde the pension/retirement money promised to their workers through legal loopholes, and then later complain that it is "too expensive" to take care of their retired employees.

This interview on The Daily Show with investigative journalist Ellen Schultz explains this outrageous, dishonest greed, and the way that the super-rich are able to use their resources to manipulate the system:

What are your thoughts? How do you feel about the Occupy Wall Street movement, whether it be here. or the demonstrations outside of the U.S.? What are your reactions to the videos I've posted?
I appreciate your feedback and continued support!

Saturday, November 19, 2011

"I have a friend (call him Joe) that is in charge of HR at a company around here. Another guy in our group is really struggling financially (Mike), and Joe thinks he should hire Mike rather than someone more qualified. Thoughts?"

Poor Fredo... He was looked over too.

Hi Scott,
Thanks for reading and asking your question. Now, are you talking about not hiring someone more qualified from within the company or outside the company?

If the person purportedly more qualified is from outside the company, then I think it makes his decision a lot easier to promote Mike, who knows how the company works from the inside more than an outsider, and has been a loyal employee for some time. It is normal to reward loyalty and membership with the trust of promotion to an opening position.

If the person who is supposedly more qualified is also an employee of this company, like Mike, then it makes the question a little more difficult. Now, to be clear, it is always a nice, positive thing to do to help someone who is struggling financially. So, in that case already, Joe is doing a good thing. Now, does Mike deserve it? Maybe not over this other, more qualified gentleman. But, what makes him more qualified? Is the difference in experience/skills that considerable? These can be important questions.

All in all, it is Joe's job in HR to appoint people to positions as he sees fits (or, so it seems based on what you have said). So, if Mike will not be up to par in this position, Joe may take heat for it. In either case, it is his call, and somehow he earned the trust of your company to make that call. So, in that sense, I respect Joe's choice, especially since it seems to be for benevolent reasons.

If there is more important information that I am not considering, please let me know and I will further address the situation. Thanks again for reading, and readers, you may leave more questions if you have them!

Friday, November 11, 2011

Republicans sure now how to pick 'em, don't they? Here is another example of a numbskull, elected by numbskulls. Luckily, Governor Perry's Presidential hopes finally look dead in the water because of this...

LOL. Wow. One of the most important issues in his campaign, something that he has continuously driven home in the past, and he forgets it on public television. Just goes to show that if you don't really believe in what you are spewing (or even do any research to learn about it), your talking points can easily "slip your mind".

Embarrassing, Republicans. Looks like Mit Romney is your man for 2012, as much as many of you do not want him to be. How ironic that the Christian, Jesus-freak circus that has become the modern Republican Party will now have to throw their support behind a Mormon. But, don't be so sore. Your faith in such fake, ignorant idiots (and lack of faith in the authentic, informed Ron Paul) will ensure that President Burak Obama will get his second term in office. I lol'd.

GW Bush 2.0 has been shelved. Adios Guv'nah.

What do you guys make of this gaffe? Do you agree that Rick Perry's campaign for the Republican nomination is dead? Leave your feedback!

Monday, November 7, 2011

Hi Deso,
To answer your question: Of course evolution should be taught in school. It is clear that evolution is a scientific fact. It is very unfortunate that many of the conservative/Republican politicians that help make the laws in the United States do not believe in evolution, or say idiotic things like "The jury's still out on evolution", which is a direct quote from the benighted ex-President George W. Bush. So ashamed.

Anyways, just like any scientific fact, it should be taught in Science classes and any other class where it may be applicable to the topic. It is incredible that some people still do not believe in evolution when we see evidence of evolution all the time. One great example of swiftly-developed, modern-day evolution is MRSA or "super bacteria" that are resistant to often several different forms of anti-biotics.

bbc.co.uk explains how this works:

"It's all about survival of the fittest - the basic principle of evolution. Bacteria have been around a lot longer than us, so they're pretty good at it.

There are countless different strains of a single type of bacteria, and each has subtle natural genetic mutations that make it different from another. In addition, bacterial genes are constantly mutating.

Some strains' genetic makeup will give them a slight advantage when it comes to fighting off antibiotic attack. So when susceptible strains encounter antibiotics they die, while these naturally resistant strains may prove harder to kill. This means the next time you encounter S.aureus, it's more likely to be one that has survived an antibiotic encounter, (i.e. a resistant one). Eventually, the strain becomes resistant to different antibiotics, even though they work in slightly different ways.

When you are prescribed antibiotics, you are advised to finish the entire course. If you don't do this, there's a chance that you'll kill most of the bugs but not all of them - and the ones that survive are likely to be those that have adapted to be more resistant to antibiotics"

And that is proof for the biological phenomenon of evolution. It is not a question of faith, but of observable fact derived from the efforts of science. Deso, I hope I have answered your question. As always, please leave all questions and reactions of this post, or any other ethical questions you'd like addressed by your humble servant.

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

I will now answer one or two of your questions per blog post, when I'm not discussing topics of my personal choice. You may add your responses to my comments, or other ethical questions you may want me to address in the future to in the commenting section. Without further ado...

Berserculesasked: "Should I care about those that don't care"

It would appear to me that you should only care about what you want to care about. If you want to care about people who "don't care", then by all means, do so. If you do not, then it is your life, and you do not need to care about them if you do not want to. Would caring for others in almost any situation be a positive, compassionate thing to do to? Yes, of course. But, I personally think you should always do what you want, as long as what you want is not harmful to others. With that said, if you have people which you are committed to caring for, such as your children, then you should certainly continue caring for them. Remember that your "dependents" depend on you.

What Would LOLJesus Do?

I hope this answers you question. If you were talking about something else in particular, Bersercules, please tell me what that was so that I may more accurately answer your question. And that goes for all others who would like questions answered. Please be specific with what you want me to address. Thanks for reading!

Planet Earth

AdSense

Followers

About Me

I like to debate about politics(generally Progressive-minded), ethical dilemmas, and just about anything else worth arguing about.
I also have a comedy blog up and running. Follow it for frequent laughs! Big Futbol fan too, Real Madrid and USA supporter.